Thread: Immigration Issue Gridlocked, Representatives Say

Immigration Issue Gridlocked, Representatives Say

By Doug Thompson
The Morning News
May 10, 2007
ROGERS -- Third District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers, won his first Republican primary saying he would go to Washington and support the president.

He no longer supports the president on the immigration issue.

"There are two topics you hear about wherever you go: The war and immigration," Boozman said. "Everyone seems to be concerned about immigration. It's just difficult to really come up with a solution everybody seems to agree with."

President Bush wants to give a path to legal residency to an estimated 10 million to 20 million people living illegally in the United States.

"The president, I disagree with him," Boozman said. "He doesn't call it amnesty, but it's amnesty."

The president wants Congress to agree on immigration policy that includes a legal residency process before recessing in August. That, or any other immigration policy changes, appears unlikely at best, Boozman said. The splits on a number of issues seem too wide, the congressman said.

The most recent talks between the president and congressional leaders included discussion on making that path to legal residency 13 years long, according to news accounts.

"You have a group -- and I'm one of this group -- who believe we have to restore confidence and secure the border regardless of what the overall solution is," Boozman said about what he described as the biggest sticking point. "If you don't secure the border, it's not going to work.

"The other thing is, you've got to hold employers accountable," Boozman said, referring to willing employers of illegal immigrants.

On the issue of border security, immigration law attorney Mauricio Herrera of Rogers said that walls can be climbed.

"People will find a way and will continue to do so," he said. "The real problem is government in Latin American. There are no checks and balances. Then there's the corruption. The labor laws don't protect people. There are ways to force employers to pay or be fined. When people do get paid, there are strings on their pay. Everybody demands a piece. People are tired of that, and they resent it. That's why they come. If they could get a decent wage in their own countries, they wouldn't be here."

"I'd give some consideration to the people here who are making a living," Herrera said. "Call it amnesty if you want. They came here looking for a better life, and they haven't done anything illegal expect come here. That should be taken into consideration. If you do something for them, and have a guest worker program for people to cross the border legally to fill the demand for work, then you might be able to secure the border."

This prospect of congressional gridlock, for now, may be the best option, said U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. Tancredo is running for president in the Republican primary and trying to make immigration a central issue in the race. He said in an interview that he wants the gridlock broken, but not before another president takes office.

On Congress' chances for approving a new immigration policy, Tancredo said: "I'm hoping they're slim to none, because the only kind of agreement we'd get out of this Congress and this president would be a disaster for the country."

Granting permanent residency to 20 million people living illegally in the country now would be "making a mockery of the rule of law," Tancredo said.

While Congress and the president debate, more illegal immigrants come.

The federal government must make some reform soon, Tancredo said. He expressed doubts that efforts by state or local governments could stem illegal immigration without a changed federal system: "They'd be overwhelmed."

Even the prospect of being overwhelmed does not excuse doing nothing, however, said Mayor Steve Womack of Rogers.

"He may be right, but anybody in my shoes who sits back and does nothing would be taking a defeatist attitude," Womack said.

"You can't do nothing," Womack said.

Womack is pursuing 287(g) federal funds, a program to train at least six city police officers to handle immigration cases. Erik Meder, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund regional office in Atlanta, has written to the Department of Homeland Security objecting to the funding. Meder argued in his letter that the attempt would violate a 2003 settlement of a racial profiling lawsuit against the city.

"A better-trained officer is a better officer," Womack said.

Better training would make racial profiling less likely, not more, he said.

Meder scoffed.

"If he can convince the federal government to provide the training, and then not use it, I suppose he could do that. Any use of that training would violate the settlement agreement. I'd be surprised if he can talk the federal government into paying for training his officers can't use."

Meder quoted the settlement agreement in Lopez v. Rogers, which said in part: "Rogers police officers shall not request specific information for the purpose of determining an individual's (residency) status, except to determine whether a person matches a specific description of a specific subject." You cannot start up an immigration enforcement program without asking people if they live in the country legally, he said. Rogers attorneys disagree. The city's request is pending before the federal Department of Homeland Security.

On the general issue of whether local authorities should enforce immigration laws, Meder said that was unconstitutional and should be.

"The Founding Fathers put immigration policy as one of the few issues that can only be enforced by the federal government for a reason," Meder said. "If you don't, you have a patchwork of different states and local governments enforcing inconsistent immigration policies.

"What's wrong with that is that by the time you successfully challenge a local or state law, people have been deported or denied housing or jobs because of an illegal law. There are casualties. That's real life."

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/ ... eissue.txt

Originally Posted by jean

"The Founding Fathers put immigration policy as one of the few issues that can only be enforced by the federal government for a reason," Meder said.

This guy wants to re-write the Constitution to suit his agenda. The Founding Fathers only said that Congress alone can decide who to let into the US, they did not in any way say only the federal government can enforce those immigration laws.

Granting permanent residency to 20 million people living illegally in the country now would be "making a mockery of the rule of law," Tancredo said.

Not only that, but if these 20 million are allowed "chain migration", wherein they can bring in other family members, we'll be looking at 40 to 50 million uneducated hispanics dumped on us in one fell swoop. No way could our country, culture and language survive that type of onslaught.

Meder is real tight on sticking to the Constitution when it's in his favor, isn't he. MALDEF needs to be prohibited from receiving federal funding and made to register as an agent of a foreign government.

Originally Posted by Faye

Meder is real tight on sticking to the Constitution when it's in his favor, isn't he. MALDEF needs to be prohibited from receiving federal funding and made to register as an agent of a foreign government.

RIGHT ON, FAYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!